Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jena Six

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [1].

---

Jena Six

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is a GA that I believe is ready to undergo the FAC process and become an FA. Last year, this article was a battleground when the J6 were in the news and it was the issue de jour. Now I seem to be the last editor standing, and I've concentrated on improving it and keeping it updated. I think it is ready to be a FA. Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm concerned about the use of names of minors, such as "On July 9, 2008, -----, who is now 17, was released from house arrest (after eighteen months on that restriction) which he was placed on for unrelated charges so that he could attend a summer program and football camp". I think this is a potential BLP issue and I haven't seen it discussed. If you could provide any link to such, I would like to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'm concerned about any mention of "subsequent legal involvement" in regards to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Not quite sure what you were looking for. First, these facts were stated at public court hearings. Arrests are public records (as are other charges). The Town Talk, a Louisiana paper, chose to publish them. Keep in mind that the age of adulthood for criminality for Louisiana is 17. The only thing we don't discuss is the question of the status of the juvenile's (JRB, if you like) involvement in the J6 case. The papers stated he was part of the motion to get Mauffray dq'd, so presumably Yeager will be trying his case. But we don't know exact status, and we may never know it. The rest of it, though, is part of the public record, recorded by the papers. As for BLP, it is no violation of BLP to say someone was arrested, or even stopped for speeding. After all, the OJ Simpson article talks about his Las Vegas thingy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has already made it clear that just because it is legal, it does not necessarily meet the required "ethical" standards of the Encyclopedia. I think you should figure this out quickly, either at the Village Pump, Request for Comments, or directly ask Jimbo his opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will, but jeez, if we are to not print the names of anyone who has not been convicted, we might as well call it the Jena One.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated a RfC. It does sound kind of crazy to discuss withholding the names of two people who presented awards and made a speech at the MTV Music Video awards, but hey, that's WP for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not that. Its about them getting into trouble afterwards. Some people may argue that the two are not related and that you are tainting their image unfairly. All I know is that this topic is a potentially hot button topic. I'm saving you in the long run. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is difficult to evaluate that. The thing is, the Beard stuff was covered in at least 20 newspapers, both when he was allowed to go to NY and then allowed to go to school. The other stuff seems only to have been in The Town Talk, but that is the big paper down there. I'm not sure what damage WP can do. But I'll modify my query.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. It would be a shame if the article got destabilized. I think that is one of the most troubling things that could happen to a primary editor of an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Does it matter to your concern that all except Beard were adults at the time of their subsequent arrests/summons?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion one way or another, actually. I just gave it a first glance, noticed the section and though to bring it to your attention before someone else did in a less pleasant manner. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with listing the names. This has gotten extensive press coverage, and as long as we are not going outside the sources, I see no problem here. Karanacs (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The two other people who have commented so far also seem to think it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Comments

• Interesting article. A few references are dead, including "8 face charges in Jena High fire". Please check them all. A minor thing, but I'd prefer to see "U.S." as "US" and perhaps expand FBI on the first mention. Gary King (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll get to work on it. Is the "US" thing per MOS? I'd hate to be torn back and forth between two reviewers if it is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's strict, but from my experience "US" is preferred at WP:MOS, from discussions and such. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Done except the refs. I don't have a ref check tool, so I am doing them manually. Takes some time, and reviewers are keeping me jumping. Will post when I'm done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
        • All the links are good now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Very interesting article. The events down there really piqued my curiosity, but I never got around to doing more reading about them. Per WP:MOS, blocks of references need to be in numerical order. I saw at least two unordered. Calor (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the praise. I've resolved your issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment You need to close the open Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done that. Thought I had. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support by karanacs. *Reluctant oppose by karanacs. I think you've done an excellent job of presenting a neutral point of view here, and the article seems quite comprehensive from what I remember of the case. I think the article organization needs quite a bit of work, though. Some suggestions:

• • "and mug shots of the three arrested adults show this to be so." - Would this fall under WP:OR? I'm not sure.
  • It might be good to include information that people came to the rally from states far outside of Louisiana. Weren't they busing peple in?
  • Any information on what the townspeople thought, either of the case or of the media craziness?
  • There is inconsistency in date formatting. Either all month-day combinations should be wikilinked, or they should all not be wikilinked.
  • "It is still available on the Friends of Justice web site" - what is? The summary or the Witt article? Is it important that it is available on the website? To me, that seems like trivia.
  • "(a tree with three nooses dangling still decorates the Friends of Justice web site), " this seems like unimportant trivia - too much weight to the Friend of Justice website?
  • Is Friends of Justice an advocacy group for everyone or just the Jena 6? If just the 6 then it should be in public response.
  • I'm not very fond of the list in the Columnists and editorials section. These are good quotes, but I think they ought to be incorporated better into prose. Perhaps more information could be added to help add background to some of these, or the quotes could be moved to other parts of the article.
  • The section Action by Members of Congress has several quotations that are not immediately followed by a citation. per WP:MOSQUOTE, please cite these after the sentence, even if that means subsequent sentences will reference the same citation.
  • Color of Change is listed but with and without spaces in the name. Please be consistent.
  • I question whether the section Defendants' subsequent legal involvement is needed. That seems a bit like poisoning the well - it doesn't have anything to do with the case.
  • I would move the information in the section Walters' and Washington's views on the assault to the attack on Barker section or to the first section.
  • I don't like the section heading "Events in Jena: August 2006–December 2007". The bulk of the information given covers August through December 2006, with just one brief finding in Dec 2007. I would rename this something like "Background" or "Initial disputes" or...?
  • I think I would combine the Repercussions and District attorney's address sections.
  • The attack on Barker section should probably be stand-alone. It is a precursor to the legal case, and not part of the legal case.
  • I think that the sections Artistic tributes and Action by Members of Congress section should probably go into the Public Response section.
  • Shouldn't the information about the funding distribution go into the same paragraph talking about the fundraising?
  • I would put the information about the Barker countersuit in the Legal case section
  • Media coverage should probably go before public response
  • There is no accessdate listed for several of the online sources.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 26: McLaughlin, Eliott C. & Roesgen, Susan (2007-09-05). "Residents: Nooses spark school violence, divide town". Retrieved on 2007-09-04.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 30: LA statute". Retrieved on 2007-11-03.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 33: Foster, Mary (2007-08-15). "King calls for support for 'Jena Six'". Retrieved on 2007-08-19.

or current ref 34: Brown, Abbey. "'Jena Six' defendant's criminal history comes to light; bond denied". Retrieved on 2007-09-14.

• • There is no publisher listed for current ref 53: Mos Def Leads 'Jena Six' Protest" (2007-09-20). Retrieved on 2007-09-25.
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 63: Flaherty, Jordan. "Justice in Jena". Retrieved on 2007-10-20.
  • Friends of Justice and Color of Change are listed differently in references - sometimes with italics, sometimes without. Please be consistent
  • "On July 3, Bill Quigley wrote a column for the website Truthout.org, which generated more attention from the alternative press." - this is sourced to the column itself, but the sentence seems to be saying that the column itself "generated more attention from the alternative press." - if that is the case this should be sourced to something else.
  • There are several other references that don't have publishers

Karanacs (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It will take me some time to work through these. One I'll answer: yes, there have been quotes from townspeople, and they have been the source of disputes as well. But I dislike "man on the street" style stuff, it is too easy to be selective. I will work on the other stuff over the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I took care of everything, except the following, which I will argue should remain as in the article:

Townspeople reaction: As I stated, "man on the street" is inherently selective and you can say whatever you want with them. I would keep them out.

Subsequent legal problems: I made the subsection title less judgmental, but I think info on what the J6 members have been up to should remain. It is balanced and factual, and Beard seems to have done quite well, if he is going to a rather prestigious boarding school in Connecticut. There is also a connection to the J6 legal case, as Walters said he is going to try to admit Purvis's assault in Texas in the J6 trial. I thought it was unnecessary detail, but I can put it in.

Barker's legal case: I do not think this should fall under the criminal case. A civil case is very different. I felt it was best to keep things more or less in chronological order.

Action by Members of Congress. Again, chronological order. It would be confusing to the reader to be hopping all over the place timewise.

I hope you will accept these as matters of style and editorial judgment and withdraw your oppose. The only one I really feel strongly about is the what has happened to the J6 members afterwords. I think the reader deserves a complete and updated picture and that we give them the positives and the negatives as reported in the media.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 21, and 56 are lacking last access dates.
• Current ref 30 (LA statute) is lacking publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 33 (Foster, Mary "King calls...") is lacking a publisher. It requires registration (which should be noted) and what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 34( Brown, Abbey "Jena Six...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 53 (Mos Def Leads..) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 63 (Flaherty, Jordan...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 68 (Miller, Talea) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 72 (Landers, Kim) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 73 (Younge, Gary) is lacking a publisher
• CUrrent ref 75 (Patterson, Orlando) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 85 ("Kanye West, Nelly...) is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 87 (Jena Six notebook) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 90 (Witt, Howard) is lacking a publisher

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Wehwalt doesn't mind, but I went ahead and took care of these concerns; I've added publishers and accessdates as requested. Ref 33 is an article released by the Associated Press, and should be considered reliable. Ref 30, I'll allow Wehwalt to address, but it is backed up by 31 (UN Chronicle). It may not be needed at all. - auburnpilot talk 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We didn't need 30 so I got rid of it. I also replaced ref 33. I think everything there is taken care of. Thanks AuburnPilot!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Images have correct licenses (from what I can see - I don't have OTRS access), sufficient sources, and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. Extremely thorough without being trivial. Provides a full, comprehensive scope of the subject, giving many different views of the same events. Well referenced. Unafraid to correctly point out the many inconsistencies on the reporting of the subject. Quite possibly the best resource about the Jena Six on the web. I strongly support this article to be featured. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose In general, very comprehensive and neutral. However, the tone and style reads more like a newspaper article or court affidavits/statements rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Although I recognize that this is still a recent event with on-going proceedings, the verb tenses are inconsistent, especially in the lead. Just use the past tense.
  • I don't think sources should be included in the body of the text: "Sources told ESPN", "wrote a column for Truthout", "writing on Huffington Post"
  • Responses from involved parties to other events such as the tree cutting, media attention, etc. are also unencyclopedic
  • Information under the "other reaction" and "other developments" subsections come across as trivia (BET Awards, MySpace)
• Ultimately, I would refer the nominator to 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident for an example of a recent news item FA. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to disagree with some of that. I did change the entire lede to past tense, except for "still await trial", obviously. I'll agree on the ESPN, but the history of the media coverage (truthout.org) is part of this story, and it is relevant where it appears. The sampling of editorial/opinion coverage also should note where they are coming from, especially since at least one of them is a lead editorial and to take it out would yield nonsense.

• The cutting down of the tree is part of this story. The lionization of the defendants at the BET awards, and the money controversy (of which the myspace is a part) is part of the whole story (the money controversy has lasted to today, with Beard using defense funds to pay for education). If we cut out these things, the article would not be comprehensive.
• "Tone and style" is a rather subjective thing, I'm afraid. I did read the article on the Air Force incident, but that is very different, it is more about a incident per se, whereas the Jena Six is as much about how it was perceived by other people, than about the assault on Barker and the legal case itself. With respect, you're comparing if not apples and oranges, then at least apples and pears.
• I think we will have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, and leave it to the discretion of other editors and the FA director. --Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt on the attributions to sources within the article. This is important in helping the reader understand how information about the incident spread, and it is important for evaluating the reliability of statements. I would recommend against removing any of that. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad article, but I'm still going to oppose on the basis that it does not meet criteria 1a (prose) and 4 (length/summary style).

• There are too many instances of inappropriate words for either a journalistic or encyclopedic style: "opined", "US Attorney Washington decried",
• Random sentence fragments of tangential value throughout the text reduce the quality of prose: "A doctor treated Washington at a local emergency room", "Police were called to investigate",
• Although there are conflicting accounts, there is too many quoting of sources in body text or other non-encylopedic narratives. "According to US Attorney Washington", "It was initially reported",
• Tangential information/quotes: Barker's desire to attend the ring ceremony is inconsequential, news media correcting facts is inconsequential since this likely happens for every breaking or complicated news item
• Inconsistent verb tenses: "Although Washington believes", "It has been reported", "Walters has appealed"
• Rampant weasel words: "Black residents of Jena", "the news media widely cited", "News reports from Jena have evoked...", "initially largely ignored by the United States national media"

From here on up, I don't think your objections are well-founded, for the reasons as stated in my comments. However, I did get rid of the "sentence fragments" you cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Blane Williams, himself a black man" could probably be worded in a more "politically correct" manner.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Perhaps due to the protection given juvenile convictions, the media had initially reported that Bell had no prior criminal record." Is this OR or just an inability to state the fact. I would drop the "perhaps".

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Discontinuities such as the appellate ruling on the battery conviction imply that the lower court's ruling was appealed - when, by whom, on what grounds?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Proceedings were on hold for some time pending resolution by the Third District Court of Appeals of the appeals of Mauffray's denial of motions that he recuse himself for alleged bias." Incomprehensible.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think the prose is up to par yet and there is still far too much inclusion of tangential or trivial material in the article. Indeed, given the examples above, it seems that there is an underlying narrative to the article that the "media got it all wrong" when clearly it is a complicated and multifaceted case with many contributing influences and conflicting reports. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think a lot of the trivial coverage information I already mentioned is recentism and won't stand the test of time when it's written into the history books and scholarly articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As some of the media printed corrections, or ran stories that the initial info was wrong, it is hardly OR or a narrative to print it. The scope of Barker's injuries, and the fact that he was well enough to attend the ring ceremony that evening was widely covered. Only a defendant can appeal a conviction, but I will spell that out. I will simplify the recusal matter; perhaps it is me as a lawyer because it seems clear to me. The quoting of sources in text is needed, as explained by me and supported by Karanacs, and I think your weasel words concern fits in the same category. I'm unclear as to how to address your broad concerns; I'm not disregarding them, but I'm not prepared to gut the article to satisfy them. Then other editors would rightly criticize for lack of comprehensiveness. I disagree with you on recentism; the changes in media coverage and acceptance of the early, incorrect information on the grounds it made a better story is part of the narrative, correctly so. This story is about more than the assault, it is about how the Jena Six were perceived.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed a number of your specific concerns as to phrasing. However, I think we will have to disagree regarding the media coverage issues, cited reaction from black residents (I'm just citing what's in the refs), etc. This article is more than about the assault, it is about what became a nationwide cause celebre, at least briefly, and I think we have philisophical differences here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made many of the specific changes you've requested. If your oppose is immutable, absent a total rewrite of the article, I'm not sure there's much I can do about that. If you see things that would cause you to at the least withdraw your oppose, I'm willing to compromise. Keep in mind the stated purpose of this page is to try to complete the process to FA, not to shoot down what you yourself admit is "not a bad article."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will retain my oppose as I continue to believe that this article does not fulfill criteria 1a since the relatively mundane matters I raised, rather than being addressed, have been discounted and dismissed. It is not unheard of for FACs to undergo a "total rewrite" or be subject to several nominations to fulfill the criteria. I don't understand why this article is precluded from the same expectation of other FAs to be held to the very highest standard of engaging, neutral, and professional prose rather than just enough to "get by". Indeed, the purpose of this page is not to eventually promote every nomination to FA status but to ensure that nominated pages fulfill the stated criteria. I believe this article does not. It's not a bad article, but it's not Wikipedia's best work either. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being dismissive, I've worked hard to address your points; at least 25 changes have been made to the article to try to address your concerns, but you maintain it doesn't meet 1a. In my view, to address your remaining concerns (which are not "relatively mundane"), we'd have to lop off the final third of the article (the parts you decry as "trivial coverage information"). Words such as "decried" and "opined" are perfectly appropriate under the circumstances, given the subject matter. You seem to dislike the past perfect (if I remember sixth grade correctly) such as "has reported"; those are appropriate usages, and I disagree with your position. I have not dismissed your concerns, by any means, but I think you have missed the point a bit; the media coverage and public reaction is a major part of this article and of the Jena Six story. To give it a treatment such as in the Air Force incident would give a sterile rendering of what transpired, and it would be hard to argue that such a treatment as you propose should be a FA, so we'd be a bit between a rock and a hard place. Yes, the point of the FAC process is not to promote every article, but given that we have a slew of "well written" and "engaging", and no one else has expressed your concerns (many of which I've addressed), I'm forced to conclude that not everyone can be satisfied in this world, and to implement what you want would put the article at serious risk in other ways--such as comprehensiveness, since the aftermath is part of the story. If there are specific concerns and ways in which you think the article can be improved, I'm still willing to work with you. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens. I believe that I and the reviewers that have made changes in the article have addressed all "actionable concerns" and that this article fulfils all criteria. Consensus does not mean unanimity, though I wish you'd reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: in the section: News coverage is the link: ' or evoked Jim Crow. ' This is a disamb. and I can only guess it means the Jim Crow laws? Please fix it. (sorry I'm not a native speaker and don't know American laws, high school system or celebrities ;-) In general a good written and interesting article. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It does, and I've fixed that. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Images - David Fuchs
  • Image:Baisden-and-Sharpton.jpg - supposed free (CC-3) license with permission, I am checking with someone with an OTRS account to verify.
  • Image:Jena High School.jpg - public domain, original author/license present
  • Image:Gotta go.jpg - licensed as CC-3.0, see above Murphy image
  • Image:Jena Six march in Cleveland, Ohio.jpg - the source image on Flickr has been deleted, so there's no way to verify appropriate license.
  • Image:Jena Six petition.JPG - same issue as above.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what can be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, nothing :P I'm just listing things off for the criterion. The Flickr licenses were verified, but I'll have to check with the image gurus about what can be done with them now, and we have to wait for Deskana to PM me the OTRS, so there's no action you need to take for now. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Deskana sent me the OTRS stuff (minus personal details), so I can verify that their licenses are correct. Images meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Article is well written, comprehensive, and extensively sourced. I don't see any problems with neutrality, stability, or structure. All references are complete and consistently formatted. As for the images, I don't believe the fact they were delete from Flickr is a problem. Of those two images, Image:Jena Six march in Cleveland, Ohio.jpg was verified through the Flickr Review process, meaning the source and license information was checked by an independent bot/editor when it was uploaded. Image:Jena Six petition.JPG was "verified" by the uploader, and may be questionable. The OTRS confirmations can be seen in the image histories here and here. Well done. - auburnpilot talk 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd prefer if the dates weren't wikilinked, see MOS:UNLINKDATES. There's a script that can quickly delink the dates if you'd like it run. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, please feel free to run it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.[2] - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Support. A few things that need to be fixed: Kaldari (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. "The Jena Six were initially largely ignored by the United States national media, though covered locally and within Louisiana." The cited source doesn't mention anything about local media coverage, just African-American blogs that covered the events prior to the mainstream media picking it up. You should either find a better source for this sentence, change the text of the sentence, or move the citation so that it appears after the comma instead of the period.
  2. There is no discussion of local media coverage whatsoever. This probably isn't critical to meeting the comprehensiveness requirement, but it would be a nice addition.
  3. "The first piece on the case ran on May 9, 2007, in Left Turn, a small alternative news magazine." Assuming there was actually local media coverage (although there are no sources to back that up currently), I would assume that this is supposed to say "first national piece" or "first non-local piece" rather than "first piece". Please investigate and clarify as the current wording is confusing.
  4. "The two defendants were photographed on the red carpet, 'modeling like rap stars'." This sentence is neither relevant nor encyclopedic. I would recommend deleting it.
  5. "If he wouldn’t have (sic) taken that plea, he wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now." I don't understand why "(sic)" is needed there.
  6. Image:Baisden-and-Sharpton.jpg has no source information. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It now mentions that The Jena Times and The Town Talk followed the case basically from the inception, citing to Franklin's article and to the Town Talk J6 coverage page. That addresses your first two concerns. I will delete the sentence as recommended. The quote is bad grammar, which is why the sic is there. He should have said, "If he hadn't taken the plea . . . ". As for the image, I'd appreciate clarification. It seems to have an OTRS license, which has been passed as valid by others on this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All of your corrections look good to me. I don't think the grammar in point 4 is bad enough to warrant a notice. Seems like overeager use of "sic" to me. Regarding the image, the licensing is fine, but it still needs to state the source of the image on the image description page. Perhaps someone with OTRS access can provide this from the ticket. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete the sic. Images are a bit outside my scope, but with luck one of the image mavens who monitor this page will do something about it. I'll message a couple of people.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sic deleted. The image really looks like an original upload by the creator.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader, Michael David Murphy aka whileseated (talk · contribs), is the copyright holder and source of the image . He uses the same name on Flickr (Whileseated) and owns the website Whileseated.org (Whois). An OTRS member can confirm this if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AuburnPilot. Well, I think that diposes of that concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I also moved the source information to the proper section on the image page, and clarified the wording. [3] - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Now it is actually possible to attribute someone for those attribution licenses :) Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support/Suggestions – I came through this article from a link on American Gangster (album). I had no idea what the Jena Six was, and I can say that this article is very informative and very well written. From what I can say, it meets all of the FA criteria, now that the image "issue" seems to be clarified. Just a few minor suggestions if I may:

• In the lead section, "…with the beating of Justin Barker, a white student at…" white redirects to European American. Shouldn't it redirect to White American? (not all white people are strictly from European descent).
• In the Artistic tributes section, "John Mellencamp released a song and video called "Jena", which gained considerable media attention, and which implied that the Jena Six members were unfairly prosecuted due to racist attitudes of the town." Would that need a citation?
• The image Jena Six march in Cleveland, with the caption "Marchers support the Jena Six in Cleveland, Ohio." is in the Media coverage section. I think it would be more appropriate for it to be in the Public response section.
• Sorry to be the latest person to contradict other users this U.S. vs. US thing, but WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations actually states that "In American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States; US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English." So my guess is that in this article, you should use 'U.S.'.

—Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed to "White American" per your comment, added material on Mellencamp's song which should address your concern, moved the image. I'm not gonna change back to U.S. from US at this time due to the difference of opinion among reviewers (I am happy to do it either way) which you noted, but will consider asking for advice on a noticeboard. Thanks for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.